The Tribunal held that service tax paid under a partner’s registration can be adjusted against the firm’s liability. However, liability as a sub-contractor was upheld.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The Tribunal held that cash received at the time of executing a registered sale deed does not fall within the definition of “specified sum” under Section 269SS. Since the provision primarily targets advances in property transactions, penalty under Section 271D was unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the case under the mistaken belief that no scrutiny assessment had been made. Such factual error and absence of new incriminating material vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely because of an incorrect disclosure in the return. Documentary proof of running a school was decisive.
The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely because the supplier failed to deposit GST, applying the reading down principle to Section 16(2)(c).
High Court held that compensation received for termination of trademark rights in AY 1997-98 was a capital receipt. Since Section 28(va) was inserted prospectively from 01.04.2003, it could not apply to relevant year.
ITAT Amritsar upheld rejection of 12AB registration after finding that only ₹2.51 lakhs out of ₹40 lakhs received was spent on charitable activities. The Tribunal held that minimal charity expenditure and dominant non-charitable spending justified denial of registration.
The High Court permitted the assessee to file an appeal beyond limitation upon depositing 50% of disputed tax in two instalments. Non-compliance would permit recovery proceedings.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are correctly taxed in one assessment year, protective addition in another year cannot survive. Deduction under Section 54F was also allowed as conditions of the proviso were not met.
